Best Government Type?

Which one of these government types is best? If I have missed one out, tell me in the comments!
CAN WE GET 5 UPVOTES ON THIS PLZ? THANKS!

Free_warrior made an alt?

Looks like it..

Written by Guest, 07.09.2017 at 04:40

Written by USTASHA_ZDS, 06.09.2017 at 19:27

Which one of these government types is best? If I have missed one out, tell me in the comments!
CAN WE GET 5 UPVOTES ON THIS PLZ? THANKS!

this reminds me of when youtubers are like "Just before we get into the videos if you guys could smash that like button that'd be great, lets aim for 5k"

Ahh, amazing bro! Good job...

Written by Waffel, 07.09.2017 at 03:24

Free_warrior made an alt?

Looks like it..

Waffel for mod

Democracy: people work and create while politicians squabble and fuck it up, then they retreat to bunkers or some island when war or crash happens while people suffer

Totalitarianism: people own nothing and only work, politicians don't squabble since they get killed for doing that, no crisis or weakness, but no individual freedom also

So it's either be free, create, then live through crisis where you lose some or all your stuff due to others fault, then repeat the process. Or live in an ant nest in perpetuality.



PS: junta is dictatorship as i know, not anarchy

Dicktator

Why are Junta and Anarchy together...

Tbh as an american i would prefer to be an communist (without the whole starving thing)

Radical democracy.

Written by Columna Durruti, 07.09.2017 at 22:45

Radical democracy.

why spanish? i thought u were brazilian....

Written by Free_Warrior, 08.09.2017 at 11:33

why spanish? i thought u were brazilian....

He is communist scum

Written by Evic, 08.09.2017 at 11:53

Written by Free_Warrior, 08.09.2017 at 11:33

why spanish? i thought u were brazilian....

He is communist scum

ohhh well that changes it all i guess...

Written by Larry, 07.09.2017 at 13:55

Tbh as an american i would prefer to be an communist (without the whole starving thing)

Starvation happens when you don't distribute food properly (after abolishing capitalism and market forces (supply/demand)). But if developing communism gradually, it can go without starvation.

Problem is how to maintain communism without promoting bad people to important position (stupid people tend to join the party, then they recieve position in exchange for loyalty and thus meritocracy is destroyed).

I like Chinese communism, market forces with state plans, and one-party government. So you can choose to go into economy and make money, or join politics, fight for positions, but no money involved (since economy is separated from the government now)

Written by Skanderbeg, 07.09.2017 at 12:17

Totalitarianism: people own nothing and only work, politicians don't squabble since they get killed for doing that, no crisis or weakness

Venezuela and Zimbabwe disagree xaxa

Personally, I think democracy is the best. The reason why is as follows:

1. Gives the people the opportunity to voice their concerns and take part in the political process.
2. Provides the chance for individual freedoms to be protected.
3. Incentivizes the ruling party to care about the people.


On the first point, it is fairly straight forward. Give people the vote, and they can express that how they choose. On the second point, it is similar to the first point- people don't like their freedoms taken away unless they are afraid or suffer from SJW illness.

The last point is what needs some explaining:

In my view, government whether they be run by democrats or autocrat work through incentives. In an autocracy, the ruling elite is small, therefor they only need to make sure that those in the upper echelons of society are given positions of power and have necessities of life to live decently. This leads out the vast majority of people. For example, much of Africa suffers from this problem where governments make most of their income from one resource like Oil or copper. Therefor these regimes only need to develop these industries which creates huge problems in other sectors of the economy. The government does not invest in education nor does it prepare its people for skills outside these industries. Hell, the best autocracies don't even hire their own people, they bring in engineers and workers from China, North Korea, etc. The people are not cared for and why would the government want to care for them? The government only needs the support of the army to keep the populace in line and the government does this by paying off key supporters in key positions of government using revenue from only a couple (or one) key source of income. If the revenue does not come from the people, then why try to improve their lot? After all, hungry illiterate peasants make very poor revolutionaries.



Why is democracy the best in my opinion? Well let's begin by saying it's not perfect- for instance, it cannot work everywhere like in the Middle East or societies that lack the political culture or WANT for democracy. The last time Palestine had elections, Hamas won. The last time Egypt had elections, the Muslim Brotherhood won.Turkeys AKP party (an islamist group that is a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot) wins every election with more and more votes. The Middle East is no exception- in Myanmar groups with no representation (ie. the Rohygina) are butchered by the military while in South America (and other countries like South Africa and Nigeria) political parties are based not on ideology bt ethnicity and religion (so the government gives resources only to certain groups). So what does a democracy need:

1. Free and fair elections (elections that aren't rigged and the chance for political parties to form).
2. Parties based on ideology, not ethnicity (if it is based on ethnicity, the it only creates more tension).
3. Civil Society (democratic cultures need NGOs and other civil society groups like religious organizations to better provide a free society that can exchange a variety of ideas. Hopefully it does so peacefully and does not transgress on peoples rights. Looking at you Russia).


If a democracy grows in a place that meets somewhat those three things listed above, then I think it is the best government type for providing the ability for the most freedom AND the most prosperity (or economic opportunity). This is characterized in Western Civilization. Most importantly I think democracy works best in countries where governments make the most amount of money from taxes. This means the government CANNOT spend money on things WITHOUT improving the lives of its people. If the people are not making a lot of money, the government cannot collect a lot of money in taxes. Therefor the government will pay for education to help workers get more skills (increasing their ability to feed themselves and dependents along with having time to participate in politics). It will pay for some level of healthcare and protection (you down want your taxpayers dying from crime). You try to improve your peoples standard of living because this means they will make more money that you can then tax. Not only that, but governments tend to be more stable- you're not gonna have as much coups (there is no incentive to overthrow the government) or unrest as governments get more legitimacy.



With that said, democracy does not work everywhere. But at least in the West I would say it is the best form of government so long as people are willing to stand up for the West and the ideas of freedom.

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.09.2017 at 14:14

Personally, I think democracy is the best. The reason why is as follows:

1. Gives the people the opportunity to voice their concerns and take part in the political process.
2. Provides the chance for individual freedoms to be protected.
3. Incentivizes the ruling party to care about the people.


On the first point, it is fairly straight forward. Give people the vote, and they can express that how they choose. On the second point, it is similar to the first point- people don't like their freedoms taken away unless they are afraid or suffer from SJW illness.

The last point is what needs some explaining:

In my view, government whether they be run by democrats or autocrat work through incentives. In an autocracy, the ruling elite is small, therefor they only need to make sure that those in the upper echelons of society are given positions of power and have necessities of life to live decently. This leads out the vast majority of people. For example, much of Africa suffers from this problem where governments make most of their income from one resource like Oil or copper. Therefor these regimes only need to develop these industries which creates huge problems in other sectors of the economy. The government does not invest in education nor does it prepare its people for skills outside these industries. Hell, the best autocracies don't even hire their own people, they bring in engineers and workers from China, North Korea, etc. The people are not cared for and why would the government want to care for them? The government only needs the support of the army to keep the populace in line and the government does this by paying off key supporters in key positions of government using revenue from only a couple (or one) key source of income. If the revenue does not come from the people, then why try to improve their lot? After all, hungry illiterate peasants make very poor revolutionaries.



Why is democracy the best in my opinion? Well let's begin by saying it's not perfect- for instance, it cannot work everywhere like in the Middle East or societies that lack the political culture or WANT for democracy. The last time Palestine had elections, Hamas won. The last time Egypt had elections, the Muslim Brotherhood won.Turkeys AKP party (an islamist group that is a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot) wins every election with more and more votes. The Middle East is no exception- in Myanmar groups with no representation (ie. the Rohygina) are butchered by the military while in South America (and other countries like South Africa and Nigeria) political parties are based not on ideology bt ethnicity and religion (so the government gives resources only to certain groups). So what does a democracy need:

1. Free and fair elections (elections that aren't rigged and the chance for political parties to form).
2. Parties based on ideology, not ethnicity (if it is based on ethnicity, the it only creates more tension).
3. Civil Society (democratic cultures need NGOs and other civil society groups like religious organizations to better provide a free society that can exchange a variety of ideas. Hopefully it does so peacefully and does not transgress on peoples rights. Looking at you Russia).


If a democracy grows in a place that meets somewhat those three things listed above, then I think it is the best government type for providing the ability for the most freedom AND the most prosperity (or economic opportunity). This is characterized in Western Civilization. Most importantly I think democracy works best in countries where governments make the most amount of money from taxes. This means the government CANNOT spend money on things WITHOUT improving the lives of its people. If the people are not making a lot of money, the government cannot collect a lot of money in taxes. Therefor the government will pay for education to help workers get more skills (increasing their ability to feed themselves and dependents along with having time to participate in politics). It will pay for some level of healthcare and protection (you down want your taxpayers dying from crime). You try to improve your peoples standard of living because this means they will make more money that you can then tax. Not only that, but governments tend to be more stable- you're not gonna have as much coups (there is no incentive to overthrow the government) or unrest as governments get more legitimacy.



With that said, democracy does not work everywhere. But at least in the West I would say it is the best form of government so long as people are willing to stand up for the West and the ideas of freedom.

Tell me one western country that have democracy. Real democracy where people have power, not factions.

USA have 2 parties, others dont get equal media coverate before elections/during campaign, these 2 parties have same members for 20 years which take turns in the government, their policies are same for decades. 50% of Americans are unaware of domestic policies and enacted laws, how is that democracy and not oligarchy?

Same for Western Europe, same politicians and factions, people have no voice/power. The further went Scandinavia, they were closest to democracy, before immigration fucked them up.

The rest of the world is the same, same politicians lead for decades and you get killed for trying to join. Because oligarchy.

Written by Skanderbeg, 08.09.2017 at 16:16

Tell me one western country that have democracy. Real democracy where people have power, not factions.

This is correct, The United States is a Constitutional Republic where voters elect representatives to represent them.

Written by Skanderbeg, 08.09.2017 at 16:16

USA have 2 parties, others dont get equal media coverate before elections/during campaign, these 2 parties have same members for 20 years which take turns in the government, their policies are same for decades. 50% of Americans are unaware of domestic policies and enacted laws, how is that democracy and not oligarchy?

This is also correct, the two parties are very large coalitions with the Left including socialist, minorities, SJWs, and liberal thinking people and the Right including primarily white, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives.

Policies are different, at least domestically. Democrats passed Obamacare, GOP wants to get rid of it. Democrats expanded government, Conservatives want to shrink it. Foreign policy wise, they tend to differ on future events but continue the same policies for events their predeccessors dealt with. For instance, Bush did not negotiate with Iran, Obama did. Trump disagrees with the deal but keeps it.

Written by Skanderbeg, 08.09.2017 at 16:16

Same for Western Europe, same politicians and factions, people have no voice/power. The further went Scandinavia, they were closest to democracy, before immigration fucked them up.

Macron I think is an example of large numbers of people joining a new movement and electing a new government.

Brexit is another example where the people beat the establishment.

Trump.... need I say more on him.


And once more, these "democratic oligopolies' (as you might describe them) still provide a better standard of living with more freedoms than the rest of the world. I stand by my belief that democracy is the best for the west.

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.09.2017 at 16:25

And once more, these "democratic oligopolies' (as you might describe them) still provide a better standard of living with more freedoms than the rest of the world.

Depends what you want, freedom or safety.

Having more freedom doesn't make you better or progressive. It does not guarantee you higher HDI.

'Democracy provide better standard of living' is false, because that's economy's job, not political. Democracy can have capitalist or communist economy, just like communist one-party state can have state-owned or capitalist economy.
Having a vote in politics(democracy) doesn't guarantee you higher living standards, as proven in Eastern Europe, they have democracy for quarter of century now and things are the same.

Written by Skanderbeg, 08.09.2017 at 16:36

Depends what you want, freedom or safety.

Having more freedom doesn't make you better or progressive.

We will disagree right here then. My morals, my ideals, my belief in Western Civilization is that if you provide your people with more freedom from political to individual freedoms, then not only are you more liberal (or progressive), but yes, you ARE better for respecting individuality and the rights of human beings. I'm fine with surrendering some safety if it means I have more freedom- I think many Americans would agree with you. Only when we are afraid do we willingly give away freedom- something that is very hard to get back.

Written by Skanderbeg, 08.09.2017 at 16:36

'Democracy provide better standard of living' is false, because that's economy's job, not political. Democracy can have capitalist or communist economy, just like communist one-party state can have state-owned or capitalist economy.

Democracies tend to provide a better standard of living because of two things:

1. It incentives rulers to better the lives of their people by investing in education, healthcare, security, welfare, things that help people move up the economic ladder.

2. It creates transparency by having opposing parties (and civil society) keep track of rulers and elites to keep corruption in check. This transparency means rulers do to consolidate control of the economy into one party or family allowing private enterprise to flourish and allow citizens (who are now skilled and healthy) to engage in work.

Written by Skanderbeg, 08.09.2017 at 16:36

Having a vote in politics(democracy) doesn't guarantee you higher living standards, as proven in Eastern Europe, they have democracy for quarter of century now and things are the same.

That's correct and I assumed I made that clear. Democracy is a very hard system- there are many things that can go wrong. But when done correctly, like in the West, it does significant good. Eastern Europe is poor because of systemic corruption in many governments that will take long years at combatting (just look at Brazil and South America when it comes to corruption). Furthermore, many of these countries are experiencing brain-drain where many of their workers can travel to the West and get paid more than they would in their former countries. The good news though is it appears living standards and incomes are rising in the East and should attract more workers to stay in their home countries and contribute there.

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.09.2017 at 17:16

That's correct and I assumed I made that clear. Democracy is a very hard system- there are many things that can go wrong. But when done correctly, like in the West, it does significant good. Eastern Europe is poor because of systemic corruption in many governments that will take long years at combatting (just look at Brazil and South America when it comes to corruption). Furthermore, many of these countries are experiencing brain-drain where many of their workers can travel to the West and get paid more than they would in their former countries. The good news though is it appears living standards and incomes are rising in the East and should attract more workers to stay in their home countries and contribute there.

But it's been quarter of century, many parties changed in power, and yet situation is the same, why weren't they incentivized to upgrade the infrastructure and other things?

It is true that living standard is rising, but why so slow (25 years), and still didn't reach(return to) communist level of 1980? Even their economies are still smaller than it used to be during communism 30 years ago.

Socialism is the future

Written by Skanderbeg, 09.09.2017 at 09:53

But it's been quarter of century, many parties changed in power, and yet situation is the same, why weren't they incentivized to upgrade the infrastructure and other things?

It is true that living standard is rising, but why so slow (25 years), and still didn't reach(return to) communist level of 1980? Even their economies are still smaller than it used to be during communism 30 years ago.

When the political system is inherently corrupt ie. kleptocratic (where people get into politics for the sole purpose for furthering their own wealth and power and this elf their supporters) then only reform minded leaders and a strong justice system can correct the flaws. Brazil is undergoing huge investigations into their political system from the stat oil company being plundered to bribe and enrich politicians to their construction firm Odebrecht (or however its spelt) paying off pelicans in a dozen South American countries. When corruption is this deep rooted in a system, then democracy does not fix it.

I would like to clarify that I don't think democracy is a magical system that solves all problems, only that when it arises in societies where corruption can be kept in check through transparency and a separation of powers, it can do a lot of good by maintaining some semblance of order necessary for businesses to thrive and for for living standards to improve.

A good example would be in Guatemala where the UN has sent in it's own investigators to help root out corruption. This helps create more transparency by having an independent force doing the investigations while also helping countries develop strong institutions, like a justice system, in order to stave off corruption. I can't stress enough how important transparency and strong institutions are vital for democracies. Otherwise they become centralized around a party and only benefit a few rather than the many. The Soviet Union is a good example of where transparency was lacking. The central government would direct factories to produce a certain amount of shoes or nails or other good and if a factory manager did not reach this quota, he was at a real risk of being arrested. So what happens? Many people lie, they change the numbers which leads to the central government changing it's forecast for the supposed number of products produce rather than the actual number, and over time these lead to shortages and endemic corruption as more and more people are forced to become corrupt just to keep their jobs. In Russia today, many police officers are not paid a decent wage from the state, so many will collect bribes (or perhaps even extort) to make up for this. I read in one book how many times, there is a head boss a police officer has to report too and they have to give him a certain amount of money- this incentives the police officer to engage in corruption in order to make more money.

China is an example of a one-party state cracking down on corruption and one way of doing this is raising the wages of civil-servants so they don't feel like they have to bribe.

When people are corrupt, they are incentivized to enrich themselves, not their people. They aren't going to invest money in infrastructure because that's money that could have been used to pay off a loyal supporter. When you're corrupt, you have to remain in charge of the government to protect yourself from prosecution. Just look at many African democracies where incumbent parties do their best to stay in power- if they lose, they risk losing all their financial support form the government and the new party in power can use the tools of the state to begin cracking down on the former party in power. These kinds of zero-sum games create divisive politics. In the US, losing an election means planning for a return to power in a later one. In other countries, losing an election means losing your ability to remain free or maintaining your current standard of living.

Written by Evic, 08.09.2017 at 11:53

Written by Free_Warrior, 08.09.2017 at 11:33

why spanish? i thought u were brazilian....

He is communist scum

Written by Evic, 08.09.2017 at 11:53

He is communist scum

Quote:

Written by SyrianDevil, 10.09.2017 at 03:48

He is communist scum

Written by Pheonixking929, 09.09.2017 at 10:51

When the political system is inherently corrupt ie. kleptocratic (where people get into politics for the sole purpose for furthering their own wealth and power and this elf their supporters) then only reform minded leaders and a strong justice system can correct the flaws. Brazil is undergoing huge investigations into their political system from the stat oil company being plundered to bribe and enrich politicians to their construction firm Odebrecht (or however its spelt) paying off pelicans in a dozen South American countries. When corruption is this deep rooted in a system, then democracy does not fix it.

I would like to clarify that I don't think democracy is a magical system that solves all problems, only that when it arises in societies where corruption can be kept in check through transparency and a separation of powers, it can do a lot of good by maintaining some semblance of order necessary for businesses to thrive and for for living standards to improve.

A good example would be in Guatemala where the UN has sent in it's own investigators to help root out corruption. This helps create more transparency by having an independent force doing the investigations while also helping countries develop strong institutions, like a justice system, in order to stave off corruption. I can't stress enough how important transparency and strong institutions are vital for democracies. Otherwise they become centralized around a party and only benefit a few rather than the many. The Soviet Union is a good example of where transparency was lacking. The central government would direct factories to produce a certain amount of shoes or nails or other good and if a factory manager did not reach this quota, he was at a real risk of being arrested. So what happens? Many people lie, they change the numbers which leads to the central government changing it's forecast for the supposed number of products produce rather than the actual number, and over time these lead to shortages and endemic corruption as more and more people are forced to become corrupt just to keep their jobs. In Russia today, many police officers are not paid a decent wage from the state, so many will collect bribes (or perhaps even extort) to make up for this. I read in one book how many times, there is a head boss a police officer has to report too and they have to give him a certain amount of money- this incentives the police officer to engage in corruption in order to make more money.

China is an example of a one-party state cracking down on corruption and one way of doing this is raising the wages of civil-servants so they don't feel like they have to bribe.

When people are corrupt, they are incentivized to enrich themselves, not their people. They aren't going to invest money in infrastructure because that's money that could have been used to pay off a loyal supporter. When you're corrupt, you have to remain in charge of the government to protect yourself from prosecution. Just look at many African democracies where incumbent parties do their best to stay in power- if they lose, they risk losing all their financial support form the government and the new party in power can use the tools of the state to begin cracking down on the former party in power. These kinds of zero-sum games create divisive politics. In the US, losing an election means planning for a return to power in a later one. In other countries, losing an election means losing your ability to remain free or maintaining your current standard of living.

Rising wages to reduce corruption is a myth, don't buy it. Russia and all other countries are the same by that question. You won't stop corruption by just giving more taxpayer money to police, you will just make them more wealthy, that's all. To stop corruption, you have to prosecute and investigate - then punish. One won't work without a second. Russia still have corruption because no one do their job; police don't arrest, investigators don't investigate and judge don't punish, the chain is broken and have to be fixed, not raise taxes to pay police.

Good way to speed up justice is spying, like modern Israel, or medieval Europe. Israel have spy network to create sting operations for companies, traffic, transfers, finance and medieval europe had spies searching for slave trade because that was forbiden. So something like Stalin's Russia/Mao's China/Hitler's Germany had.




About western democracy and chinese oligarchy: one chinese said: 'in USA you can change parties but not policies, in China you can change policies but not the party'.

If this is true, then Chinese system is more flexible and transparent. What's the point electing various parties when the policies are still bad, debt is rising, infrastructure crumbling and social unrest on the rise.

Written by Evic, 10.09.2017 at 13:36

Written by Evic, 08.09.2017 at 11:53

He is communist scum

Written by Skanderbeg, 10.09.2017 at 14:35

Rising wages to reduce corruption is a myth, don't buy it. Russia and all other countries are the same by that question. You won't stop corruption by just giving more taxpayer money to police, you will just make them more wealthy, that's all. To stop corruption, you have to prosecute and investigate - then punish. One won't work without a second. Russia still have corruption because no one do their job; police don't arrest, investigators don't investigate and judge don't punish, the chain is broken and have to be fixed, not raise taxes to pay police.

I would say that you are partially right. Raising wages does not end corruption immediately. What I think is happening is many civil servants are not paid enough to afford to live so many get involved in corruption to make up for that lost in income (fyi, I am not sure of the actual wages in Russia, China, etc. this is just what I have heard). Increasing wages can help mitigate that thought of "well, if I don't become corrupt I can't feed my family." You must of course crack down on corruption- as you said, simply giving them more money does not solve the problem.

Written by Skanderbeg, 10.09.2017 at 14:35

Good way to speed up justice is spying, like modern Israel, or medieval Europe. Israel have spy network to create sting operations for companies, traffic, transfers, finance and medieval europe had spies searching for slave trade because that was forbiden. So something like Stalin's Russia/Mao's China/Hitler's Germany had.

I think you have to be careful here though- spying only works when the spies aren't corrupt and the regime using them is also not corrupt- hence the need to create independent judiciaries so that they serve the state, not one person/party. For ew countries, having organizations like the UN take part in the judicial process can allow an impartial party to help root out corruption and provide assistance, tools, and training to the nations judiciary branch.

Written by Skanderbeg, 10.09.2017 at 14:35

About western democracy and chinese oligarchy: one chinese said: 'in USA you can change parties but not policies, in China you can change policies but not the party'.

If this is true, then Chinese system is more flexible and transparent. What's the point electing various parties when the policies are still bad, debt is rising, infrastructure crumbling and social unrest on the rise.

Both parties in the US will produce different policies. Domestic wise, people on the left will traiditonaly want more taxes and/or regulation while people on the right will want less taxes and regulation. Foreign policy wise, people o the left tend to be "doves" meaning they are more willing to negotiate or support groups that share our values whereas people on the right tend to take a hardline approach to any deals and will prefer not to get involved in other countries UNLESS they are our enemies (huge generalization just now).

What tends to happen is Congress gets gridlocked or leaders reach a sort of middle ground. This leads to each party in power doing basically the same thing in a different way. Foreign policy wise, they have more flexibility, domestic wise not so much.

Written by Waffel, 07.09.2017 at 03:24

Free_warrior made an alt?

Looks like it..

LMAO, looks just like him



Post-related:

Monarchy for the win, a symbol of History, National Unity and Dignity (Ideally speaking), the Monarch should be someone upon which every citizen of the country could unite around, ideally-speaking of course. In our case, in my country, we can feel that with our current President (he's actually a monarchist too xd)

Written by Al Fappino, 11.09.2017 at 08:28

Monarchy for the win, a symbol of History, National Unity and Dignity (Ideally speaking), the Monarch should be someone upon which every citizen of the country could unite around, ideally-speaking of course. In our case, in my country, we can feel that with our current President (he's actually a monarchist too xd)

Monarchy is the same old stuff repeated every 2-3 years "oh the king just died" "oh the queen gave birth to a boy" "oh the prince got a girlfriend" "oh the prince got's a bride" "oh the queen just died AFTER 1 MILLION YEARS!" tbh the only reason the UK and Sweden still has a monarch is because their ether too old school (UK) or too backwards (Sweden) and they just dont want to blend in with the rest of the worlds presidents and dictators